PUTIN has said today that he will continue to improve Russia’s nuclear arsenal in a bid to deter potential threats to his country – including arming cruise missiles with nukes to destroy ISIS. express.co.uk

India is expected to offer a site in Andhra Pradesh to set up units five and six of Kudankulam nuclear power plant by Russia in sync with broad principles of ‘Make in India’ initiative and a decision in this regard is likely to be finalized during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Moscow this week. economictimes.indiatimes.com

French nuclear group AREVA said Thursday last week it had concluded a series of agreements with CEA (French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission) for the management of nuclear facilities being dismantled at Marcoule and for assistance with onsite work covering the period 2016 to 2020. nuclearstreet.com

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY) said it would accelerate its schedule for transferring spent nuclear fuel from a “wet” cooling system to a “dry” storage system. The transfers will begin in 2019, two years earlier than originally planned, the company said. nuclearstreet.com

 

 

TEPCO has admitted a new problem with the water management and steel sea wall at Fukushima Daiichi. Salt levels in groundwater being pumped up from around the reactor buildings and sea front were found to now have more than the expected amount of salt. This appears to indicate some amount of sea water is infiltrating back into the plant grounds near the reactors. fululeaks.org

The Environment Ministry plans to issue rules about what must be done to remove materials tainted with radioactive substances produced by the 2011 crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power plant from the list of “designated waste,” according to ministry sources. chicagotribune.com

Federal officials are conducting an investigation after plutonium escaped off the Hanford nuclear site in Washington state. The plutonium is left over from a Cold War era factory at Hanford where plutonium was processed from a liquid into a solid form for bombs. nwnewsnetwork.org

Iran says new US visa law goes against nuclear deal. news.yahoo.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is speculation that India is building a top secret nuclear facility in Karnataka, seeking to upgrade weapons to unsettle Pakistan. zeenews.india.com

Upcoming Iran elections after nuclear deal ‘may have consequences for years to come’ dw.com

Iran will export most of its enriched uranium stockpile to Russia in the coming days as it rushes to implement a nuclear deal and secure relief from international sanctions, Tehran’s nuclear chief was quoted as saying on Saturday. einnews.com

A federal judge on Tuesday sentenced a former nuclear official of Russia’s state-run enterprise Rosatom to 48 months in prison for his role in a scheme that awarded contracts to American companies in exchange for millions of dollars in bribes. News.yahoo.com

 

 

 

 

Part One of Two Parts

         The big conference in Paris on Climate change where one hundred and ninety six nations agreed on measures to confront climate caused by carbon dioxide emissions stirred up a lot of commentary on various aspects of the climate change problem. One issue that is relevant to this blog is the call by some prominent climate scientists for the use of nuclear power to reduce carbon dioxide emission from the generation of electricity. This has been met by some critics as another form of climate change denial. This charge has, in turn, inspired some commentators to ridicule the accusation of “denier” against these climate scientists who call for more nuclear power. The supporters of the climate scientists say that they merely “disagree” about the best way to reduce carbon emissions and that to call them deniers is underserved slander because, in the supporters view, “denier” implies willful ignorance.

        I don’t know if “denier” is the correct term for climate scientists who say that nuclear power is a good way to reduce carbon emissions but I do have to support the idea that there is willful ignorance at work here. For the average person not to know all the problems with nuclear power generation is understandable and forgivable. But for climate scientists concerned about carbon emissions, it is not understandable and forgivable. They are academics with professional reputations who can influence decision makers with their expertise and statements about serious problems. If they are going to make pronouncements about the benefits of a particular power source with respect to carbon emissions, they cannot, in good faith and honoring their profession, ignore problems and only focus on the fact that nuclear power plants emit less carbon than fossil fuel sources. They are duty-bound to also consider many problems that come with nuclear power before they start advising that it be expanded.

1. Nuclear power is not carbon free. It requires fossil fuels to mine, refine and transport uranium fuel. The massive amount of concrete required for plant construction and cooling towers gives off carbon dioxide as it dries. And this carbon debt is incurred during start up. It requires years to pay off.

2. The cost of nuclear power keeps rising and the cost of renewables keeps falling.  They are reaching parity now and then the cost of nuclear power will keep climbing. Investors are not particularly excited about the prospects of nuclear power’s ability to compete in today’s power marketplace.

3. The spent nuclear fuel pools are filling up and there is no permanent repository for spent fuel in the U.S. and most other nuclear nations. Spent fuel will have to be stored temporarily in dry casks which are made of concrete and steel. The manufacture of such casks will generate carbon emission. And this must happen soon.

4. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been less than rigorous in ensuring adherence to regulations on the part of the nuclear industry. In some cases, officials at the NRC have secretly colluded with owners of nuclear power plants to change regulations in favor of the owners.

5. The nuclear industry has often put profits above proper construction, safety, training and maintenance at nuclear power plants in the U.S. and other countries. The Fukushima disaster was largely the fault of the company that owned and operated the nuclear power plant. This type of negligence invites more major accidents.

Please see Part Two

The Japanese government on Friday approved an evacuation plan for 180,000 citizens across three prefectures in case of an accident at the Takahama Nuclear Power Plant in Fukui Prefecture, scheduled to re-launch operation in January. sputniknews.com

Officials now say Fukushima reactor with MOX fuel “leaked directly from containment”. enenews.com

India red flags fresh nuclear reactors in Pakistan with China’s help.  economictimes.indiatimes.com

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has granted license extensions for 81 nuclear reactors that allow them to operate for up to 60 years – 20 years past their original expiration dates. This week, the NRC said it was preparing for the possibility of extending the commercial viability of commercial nuclear reactors beyond that 60 year mark. nuclearstreet.c

Part Two of Two Parts (Please read Part One first)

             In the U.S., there have been many politicians and political commentators calling for more support for the “moderate” Syrian rebels and the establishment of a no fly zone enforced by the U.S. This would be a safe haven for Syrians fleeing the devastation of the civil war and the repeated bombings by forces opposed to the different rebel factions. Some of those promoting the no-fly zone say that it should include Russia planes. This would be in clear violation of international law. Russia is operating in Syria with the permission of the lawful Syrian government. The U.S. is supplying weapons and supplies to rebels trying to overthrow the legitimate Syrian regime.

       In the Republican Presidential debate last night, many of the candidates supported a no-fly zone in Syria. If one of them is elected President in 2016, he or she would have the power to declare such a no-fly zone as commander in chief. (This is not necessarily a partisan position. Hillary Clinton, running for President on the Democratic side has also expressed support for a no-fly zone.) When Chris Christie was asked if his support for a no-fly zone extended to shooting down any Russian plane that entered the no-fly zone, he immediately said that he certainly would shoot down a Russian plane without hesitation. I was stunned by his response.

      If the U.S. established a no-fly zone in Syria and shot down a Russian plane, it would be a declaration of war against Russia. Both the U.S. and Russia have over four thousand nuclear warhead aimed at the each other which could be launched in minutes. It would mean the end of human civilization and the death of most of the human race. There have already been several times when nuclear war almost broke out between the U.S. and Russia. In each of three incidents, it was the courage and humanity of a single military officer on either the U.S. or the Russia side who refused to start the war that could destroy humanity. With rising tensions in the world, especially between the U.S. and Russia, the possibility of nuclear war is higher than it has been since the end of the Cold war with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. It is stark insanity to risk annihilating human civilization over a civil war in Syria.

       If the U.S. shot down a Russia plane over Syria, what would Putin’s response be? His popularity in Russia is based on his “tough guy” stance with other nations. He may be bluffing with is rattling of nuclear sabers but when and if his bluff is called, how would he respond? He is a brutal thug but I don’t think he is crazy enough to think that anyone can win an all out nuclear war. I think that if a Russian plane were shot down in Syria by the U.S. enforcing a no-fly zone, Putin could possibly detonate a tactical nuclear device in the Syrian desert. Few people would be harmed and little radiation would be spread. After all, both we and the Soviets tested small nuclear devices in the deserts of our own countries before the test-ban treaty. Putin could detonate a few kiloton nuclear device and then say to the U.S. “Abandon the no-fly zone and get out of Syria or the next nuke will hit the Syrian rebels you are supporting.” What would the U.S. do? What could the U.S. do? Our choices would be to back down or start World War III.

       This scenario is merely a possibility if certain trends continue. It is probably not likely. However, it is certainly possible.

Russian cruise missile: